SeattlePoker

Good point!

I found it amusing anyway:http://i.imgur.com/WAgYd.gif

It doesn'tOnce you realize that, you can figure this out.O.k., I'll just tell you. None of the cards in the first set are in the second set so no matter which card you pick it won't be in the second set.

Is there an XM station for this?I just checked the channel lineup on XM and 98 was the OutwardGay channel (seriously, and not that there's anything wrong with that).Any help?

When you get that feeling, you need sexual healing. It's good for you.

Once you are to this point, shoving or calling is fine. You basically have your dream flop, and if you're beat right now (i.e. he hit a set or even two pair) you still have a ton of outs with the club draw. More likely he has nothing and you've got him drawing almost dead. And if you just call, he'll probably give you his last $3 on the turn. If you shove, you might not get that from him.

Interesting point. But, for example WWWL = 1019.99799 (+19.99799)and LLLW = 980.00199 (-19.99801)When you factor in at least one loss into any sequence, the reciprical (just as likely) with just one win shows the negative EV.

If you actually get 2:1 odds, then it's a no brainer, take the bet. But, if you put in a dollar and only get two back if you win, that is only 1:1 odds because you already put a dollar in. The way the question is worded, you are not getting 2:1 odds (although OPs parenthetical "EDIT" does confuse things).

It's not as tricky as it sounds. It takes just two flips to show the downward spiral beginning.Flip one you win, Bankroll equals $1010.00. Now you must bet $10.10. If you lose second flip, you are at $999.90.or,Flip one you lose, Bankroll equals $990.00. Now your bet is $9.90. If you win second flip, you are at $999.90.So, in both scenarios, you won one and lost one, so it seems you should be even right? But your not. Because of the 1% rule, you are down $0.10. Now play this out a million times, and your are all but guaranteed to go broke.

I don't see the big deal. What's wrong with having multiple screen names if you never play them at the same time (something full tilt and pokerstars can easily track)? Why are people so mad about this? If this is so wrong, shouldn't Phil Laak be getting berated for wearing a disguise to the WSOP then as he was effectively playing under a different screen name?Maybe I'm way off. I just need the outrage explained to me.

That's Tracey Nguyen.See middle of this page:http://www.pokernews.com/live-reporting/au...day1c/page3.htmGoooooo Tracey!

me too

Smasharoo (a self proclaimed limit hold 'em genius and accomplished trash talker)JFarrel (an unrecognized genius the likes of which we may never see again due to the over use of banaments)Beans-n-icewater (old-school version who lived on the edge of banaments)Their offspring = Chrozzo

According to Card Players odds calculator, AQs is favored over pocket 2s, but AQ off is not.

I think you call here and see what develops on the turn. You've got the open ender to go with your queens. He could be putting you on AK or AQ and be raising with AJ or KJ. There's also a chance he has KQ or JT, or AQh and is trying to build the pot. With the pot where it's at, I say you call to get more information and if it all comes up blanks you may end up having to call him down. In other words, I'm not a fan of over aggression in this situation.My guess is that he had AJ (worst case scenario = KQh, which is also a possibility)Difficult hand (i'll be interested to read others commen